Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Excellent.
However, uke is doing 4 things that normally do not happen:
1] you know which hand is coming
2] he clearly follows with his whole body the directions tori imparts him, rather than resisting or moving away (doesn't even attempt)
3] he leans forward after he has thrown the punch, and whenever tori wants him to stay in that leaned posture, he never regains the standing position.
4] he still seems to have one offending arm only.

Let's try to imagine that aikido situation, but with uke moving in this other manner:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLicPgA_CLw
That's not a champion, and the video lasts 3 minutes so one has to view it in order to extract from it the interesting parts - full body mobility (trunk full mobility, foot full mobility) matched with full speed of execution.

You cannot grab those tsuki - once their trajectory forward is over, they don't hesistate in place one instant, but are instantly drawn back (and with physical strength - you won't withhold effectively such a thing, even inthe unlikely case you manage to grab a tsuki as it flies).

What type of training could you think of, in order to get gradually prepared for a scenario with a highly skilled puncher?
I think we need to think of a new type of training, facing a sparring punching partner with high mobility.

We need to go lateral. But this is a type of opponent that will make it extremely difficult for us to do so.

Tiresome, demotivating. Difficult. I know. But the problem is real.
Training tips?

What type of training could you think of, in order to get gradually prepared for a scenario with a highly skilled puncher?

Technically spoken:
Don't try to grab a punch. (I'm a little bit astonished: There is no grabbing of punches in the aikido I was taught.)
Don't try to "wait and react" but learn to act forward yourself.
Develop the skills to "go through" an attack. (Very very diffult to learn.)

About the training-methods:
Try to train with karateka. I think you will find karateka who also practice aikido. And they are able to offer you a lot of things which you are looking for but can adjust gradually to aikido practice.
Try to crosstrain with martial arts or sports - like boxing.
Maybe learn boxing, kickoboxing or karate yourself. Being able to produce a good combination as a boxer will also help to devellop a good answer as aikidoka.

Practice kata / kihon waza / basics intense as possible.

And at last - or as first step?
Find a teacher who offers you, what you need. You will get very frustrated if you train "against" what is taught in your dojo. Or with a teacher who you do not "believe".

What type of training could you think of, in order to get gradually prepared for a scenario with a highly skilled puncher?
I think we need to think of a new type of training, facing a sparring punching partner with high mobility.

Alberto,

Does the "only leverges and projections, and no force allowed except that which could move say 15 kilos" limitations still apply?

Well, last Friday night a few of us were training with fast, repeated punching. I ended up having to sit out as I managed to deflect a second punch up into my face, splitting my face open. So yes, some of us train with an eye towards this stuff. It isn't easy, it is more intense and it is more dangerous. And it often ain't as pretty when it "works" too. Usually the upshot of training like this is that you are reminded as to why "irimi" is such a central part of Aikido. You will not do well to constantly try to step out of the way of a skilled puncher. The first may miss but the second or third won't. And a skilled puncher ain't leaving the hand out for you to grab either. So usually you have to invade the space, taking kuzushi somehow, and finish there. Working in tight or getting way the heck far away. The point here is that you can't be "reactive" to their attacks; you will lose because you are playing on their field rather than your own.

However, uke is doing 4 things that normally do not happen:
1] you know which hand is coming
2] he clearly follows with his whole body the directions tori imparts him, rather than resisting or moving away (doesn't even attempt)
3] he leans forward after he has thrown the punch, and whenever tori wants him to stay in that leaned posture, he never regains the standing position.
4] he still seems to have one offending arm only.

I think these are valid points, but my understanding is that there are certain conditions at play here, the main one being that this is a demonstration of ideals like kuzushi, etc. Presumably, at the moment of contact the attacker is drawn off-balance in some way, which should (I think) account for 2, 3, and 4. Also, he does make the point in the first video of cutting the elbow and not the shoulder, during which uke demonstrates a regaining of posture and the beginning of kaeshi.

You cannot grab those tsuki - once their trajectory forward is over, they don't hesistate in place one instant, but are instantly drawn back (and with physical strength - you won't withhold effectively such a thing, even inthe unlikely case you manage to grab a tsuki as it flies).

My understanding is that, even if you could match/catch the strike, you're probably not going to be trying to keep it from being re-chambered simply because if the guy is stronger than you it won't work. Aikido method is based on the premise that the other guy has stronger muscles than you. The ideal is to slip the bulk of the strike's force, neutralize it enough to allow you affect the limb (and body through that limb), or to enter through another point (some form of "ate" comes quickly to mind). So, in short, whatever their trajectory is, we probably want to add to it rather than work against it.

What type of training could you think of, in order to get gradually prepared for a scenario with a highly skilled puncher?
I think we need to think of a new type of training, facing a sparring punching partner with high mobility.

We need to go lateral. But this is a type of opponent that will make it extremely difficult for us to do so.

Tiresome, demotivating. Difficult. I know. But the problem is real.
Training tips?

In some cases simply going lateral will simply help the next strike move that much faster, which is why the supposedly ever-present irimi is so important. Getting off the line of attack is a good way to avoid getting struck, but irimi is how you suppress uke's efforts.
I think the best tip for handling good strikers is simply to practice with good strikers, along with learning how to strike well. Some aikidojo have boxing connections, for example. Cross-training is cross-referencing the material, and in my opinion is the best way to be able to claim objective understanding. It's not a sure bet, just as a single aikidojo might have a very robust and well-rounded package, but to my mind it's the easiest way newer folks like me can comfortably develop any certainty for what we're doing. And for the record I've never formally studied boxing, and I admit my strikes aren't generally very good. I'm comfortable with that, but recognize going against a good striker, I'd probably be with some key disadvantages. However, at my dojo I have been hit a few times because I didn't move quick enough. It's a far cry from what would have happened in "real life" by a good striker, but it at the very least points toward certain realities.

I would argue Aikido has techniques for dealing with attacks, but emphasis dictates the quality with which those methods will generally be implemented.

Does Aikido need some other ways of training, than those normally used, in order to be a more effective means of teaching practical martial ability? Yes.

Are these ways of training new? No.

Do they involve punching? No.

There is a system that exclusively teaches punching techniques/defense; boxing. Why not study this system if you're interested in learning to defend against a punch?

Aikido techniques specialize in another area all together. You're never going to get good answers for, "dealing with a punch" from the Aikido syllabus.

What??? This requires a detailed explanation...You know Aikido has been around a long time and Most of of the different styles have a system for dealing with a punch as do Judo Ju-Jitsu and other forms that are at the root of Aikido. I respectfully and completely disagree In fact our teacher says Aikido is 90% Atemi/Punching and Aikido is done to the rhythm and flow of Atemi/Punching.

The issue may be with the way some teach Aikido not that Aikido does not know how to deal with punches or a boxer.

With all due respect...The idea that O'Sensei was too stupid or ignorant to account for the way 95% of all physical conflicts start ( with a series of punches) in his syllabus requires a detailed explanation Chris.

With all due respect...The idea that O'Sensei was too stupid or ignorant to account for the way 95% of all physical conflicts start ( with a series of punches) in his syllabus requires a detailed explanation Chris.

William Hazen

And with all due respect, your "95% of all physical conflicts start (with a series of punches) in his syllabus" requires a detailed explanation, also.

Um may I call a semantic time out? Maybe I'm out of line....but I think what William H means, to parse it out, is that 95% of physical conflicts start with a punch, therefore of course punching is addressed in his syllabus. Demetrio, are you reading it as 95% of his syllabus addresses it?

Um may I call a semantic time out? Maybe I'm out of line....but I think what William H means, to parse it out, is that 95% of physical conflicts start with a punch, therefore of course punching is addressed in his syllabus. Demetrio, are you reading it as 95% of his syllabus addresses it?

I'm reading 95% of physical conflicts start with a series of punches and Ueshiba syllabus adresses this circumstance.

So I wonder:

(a) where is founder's syllabus? As far as I know he didn't developed one. The most similar thing to a syllabus/curriculum is in Budo Renshuu and in Budo; both pre WW2 and where few techniques deal with punches.

(b) where is the data/statistics regarding this 95% of physical conflicts start with a series of punches statement? Looks as fishy as the debunked "90% of fights go to the ground" Gracie family mantra.

I'm reading 95% of physical conflicts start with a series of punches and Ueshiba syllabus adresses this circumstance.

So I wonder:

(a) where is founder's syllabus? As far as I know he didn't developed one. The most similar thing to a syllabus/curriculum is in Budo Renshuu and in Budo; both pre WW2 and where few techniques deal with punches.

(b) where is the data/statistics regarding this 95% of physical conflicts start with a series of punches statement? Looks as fishy as the debunked "90% of fights go to the ground" Gracie family mantra.

This study was for altercations involving uniformed armed officers of the law. Only 16% in the breakdown involved just punching.

When the altercation involved just civilians The ratio of punches increased significantly. Sorry for my poor semantics DJ. In my personal experience 80% of the confrontations I've been in started with a push or punch.

Continue to nitpick at your leisure and yes Budo and Budorenshuu can be considered part of the Aikido "syllabus" in my view. Where do you think Aikido got them from? Scores of books have been published on the Aikido "syllabus". Pick One.

All of our techniques Start with Atemi... All of them...

So let me ask you.... By questioning me are you defending Chris's view?

You can not equate physical conflict in general with suspects resisting arrest.

Quote:

When the altercation involved just civilians The ratio of punches increased significantly

Because you say so.

Quote:

Sorry for my poor semantics DJ. In my personal experience 80% of the confrontations I've been in started with a push or punch.

Your personal experience is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Doesn't prove your 95% of physical conflicts start with a series of punches statement. And in your case, you've just said the 80% of physical conflicts you've been involved started with a punch (not with a series of punches) or a push. Would you like to do the maths for your 80% again? Who is DJ, btw?

Quote:

Continue to nitpick at your leisure and yes Budo and Budorenshuu can be considered part of the Aikido "syllabus" in my view.

And in mine, and there are not much dealing with punches in them.

Quote:

Scores of books have been published on the Aikido "syllabus". Pick One.

I'm only interested in the ones wrote by the Founder, so I can check the accuracy of your "The idea that O'Sensei was too stupid or ignorant to account for the way 95% of all physical conflicts start ( with a series of punches) in his syllabus" thing.

Quote:

All of our techniques Start with Atemi... All of them...

Mine have atemi at the start, in the middle and, in many cases, at the end. So what.

Quote:

So let me ask you.... By questioning me are you defending Chris's view?

I'm starting to consider defending Chris view, for the fun of doing it.

Quote:

Please try to look at what I "wrote" not what you're "reading"

This is what you wrote:

With all due respect...The idea that O'Sensei was too stupid or ignorant to account for the way 95% of all physical conflicts start ( with a series of punches) in his syllabus requires a detailed explanation Chris.

This requires not only explanation but proof.

Quote:

I will try to explain things better in the future

The sooner the better

Quote:

With just a casual search I found 7 pages of Tsuki Techniques alone....

I am so very wrong and he is so very right. So now that is settled perhaps the victor "DC" can address Chris's post.

Or since his Aikido also contains Atemi Perhaps he would like to share How His Syllabus deals with folks who like to throw from the shoulder, and thus improved upon the founder's apparent said lack of expertise on the subject.

So now that I am back on topic I would like to echo what someone else wrote. Yes if you feel there is a lack of technical acumen when it comes to dealing with Tsuki by all means you should seek "New Training".

What??? This requires a detailed explanation...You know Aikido has been around a long time and Most of of the different styles have a system for dealing with a punch as do Judo Ju-Jitsu and other forms that are at the root of Aikido. I respectfully and completely disagree In fact our teacher says Aikido is 90% Atemi/Punching and Aikido is done to the rhythm and flow of Atemi/Punching.

The issue may be with the way some teach Aikido not that Aikido does not know how to deal with punches or a boxer.

With all due respect...The idea that O'Sensei was too stupid or ignorant to account for the way 95% of all physical conflicts start ( with a series of punches) in his syllabus requires a detailed explanation Chris.

William Hazen

Alright, a bit reactionary William, but I'll bite.

Having a technique or two that can loosely deal with a "punch" does not a punching system make. If you want to compare Judo punch defense to western boxing... You see where I'm going.

Atemi doesn't mean "punch". Atemi means strike. Baseball bats strike things, arrows strike things, hands strike things, many things strike. A punch is an atemi, but atemi is most often not "punching". Aikido is 90% atemi, this discussion has been had many times, but we can cut to the quick here and see, quite decidedly that Aikido isn't 90% punching.

95% of all physical conflict starts with a punch. I couldn't think of a more misleading statement. When wars take place, do we punch at each other? Do you think the Samurai were running around punching people? Do modern "men of action" (LEO, Military) deal with punching a lot? Your 95% of physical conflict represents a very small portion of what physical conflict is. If you envision drunks fighting in the streets, or thugs fighting with police officers who have taken them into custody, perhaps you are correct. However this represents a VERY small portion of "all physical conflicts".

If you would have gone to the James Williams seminar this weekend you could have heard him talking about coming out of the ego macho world where we believe unarmed fighting is somehow "important".

Punching is a pretty good chunk of unarmed conflict. Unarmed conflict is a tiny piece of the whole of physical conflict. In the grand scheme punching isn't really very important.